Book Thread

>>9162294
kys

What are the /sci/ recommended GOAT books for analytical geometry and algebra?

File: download (1).jpg (12KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 183x275px

Best math book hands down

File: 1504538429270.jpg (3MB, 3016x3929px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3016x3929px

>>9162459
Whats wrong with stewart? It's better than Apostol IMHO

File: IMG_1526.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>9162294

Fuck Stewart. Worthless piece of shit for anything beyond a paperweight

>>9162459
>>9162565
what do you fucks learned calculus from then?

>>9162294
>reading books written by homosexuals
end your life.

>>9162568
louis leithold

>>9162576
stewart>leithold

>>9162568
Spivak and Michael Dougherty

>>9162467
underrated post, here's a (You) for that excellent image

>>9162576
The book isn't even available online. Go fuck yourself.

>>9162604
How is this book formatted exactly? Is it something like an encyclopedia?

>>9162595
>The book isn't even available online. Go fuck yourself.
t. poorfag who doesn't how to walk to a library

>>9162435
Is that book good or is just a meme? I'm looking for some discrete mathematics material

>>9163087
I've never read it but I'm pretty sure it's just a meme. Rosen was decent for discrete math, I'm sure there is better.

>>9162761
I just purchased Silverman's translation of Shilov's Linear Algebra.

>>9163087
Lovasz is the most fun discrete maths, though not your usual 'textbook'. As for run of the mill texts, check out Epp's Discrete Math book. MIT also has decent OCW for Discrete Math, just make sure you take the good one.

https://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.042/spring17/mcs.pdf
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-fall-2010/video-lectures/

But begin with proofs if you're uncomfortable with them! for that, my friend, I'd recommend 'How to Prove it'.

>>9163087
>>9163169

And lastly, nigger, if you're into programmign, check out VanDrunen's "Discrete Mathematics and Functional Programming" - don't get the outdated pdf, get the actual book and check out the lecture series.

>>9163047
>implying local libraries ever have good selection

Analysis I & II by Terrance Tao

>>9163171
I read how to prove it, it's dry as fuck. The first three chapters of Rosen's Discrete mathematics and it's applications book is teaching you how to prove something. Also, the book is only 4 dollars used on Abe books, FOR THE HARDCOVER.

Rosen's book is worth it just for the proof instructions considering the price

>>9163171
Sorry my reply was meant for >>9163169

>>9163181
They're both me anyway.

>>9163180
Define 'dry as fuck'? Also, learning to prove from Rosen pales in comparison to Vellemen (author of HtPI).

And I didn't recommend Rosen, I recommend Epp. I liked the organization, aesethetics and most importanly, writing style and content more.

>>9162565
Please point out parts of Stewart's calculus text that are inaccurate / wrong.
Maybe for math students, there are better calculus texts, but for everybody else Stewart is golden.

>>9163209
Precisely, Stewart is accomodates the lowest demographic (in your own words, 'everyone else'). I've never once been demanded to prove anything while reading Stewart, and he emphasizes computational methods over intuitive understanding.

I think Stewart's fine if you've never read a rigorous text and never want to. But if you do, close Stewart.

>>9163216
>everybody that isn't a math major is the lowest demographic
That is essentially what you said. A little elitist, no? Accounting students do not need an ultra rigorous course in calculus, for example.

>>9163216
Not him but I'm in a brainlet calc course atm and I'd like a more serious book, should I go for Spivak or something else?

>>9163224
Calculus is a subject in math, so it's bound to be compared to other great texts in that subject - of which, it does not belong. There's bound to be a difference in opinion between what experts of the field thought of it (mathematicians) and "everyone else". I'm not saying it's useless, I wasn't the original Trump poster you responded to - perhaps I should have mentioned that initially. I'm just offering a defense of my criticisms of him.

For the same reason a professional entymologist might scoff at "bugs for dummies!!!1!", an amatuer butterfly collector might find it perfectly suitable for his or her own endeavors.

Lastly, I did not intend to be elitist, just as the humble entymologist above did not either, but I stand by what I said, especially since it applies to any field, and either you have misunderstood my intent or I have communicated poorly (and likely; both). In the field of math, Stewart's specific text has a 'lowest common denomator' type appeal, just as 'bugs for dummies' has a lowest common denomator appeal. It does not somehow mean entymology is the supreme STEM major.

>>9163226
I certainly wasn't satisfied with my brainlet calc course, and I doubt you will be if you're already considering something else. Spivak's on the top of my to-read list, so I'd personally go with that. But more recommendations can be found here:

https://functionalcs.github.io/curriculum/#org813891e


And of course, the /sci/ wiki has several recommendations. Up there with the memebook status of Spivak is Apostol's Calculus, and I've heard that's best read after Spivak.

>>9163247
I agree that it doesn't belong with the greats in math text, but
I'm definitely not understanding you, because it sounds to me like you are comparing Stewart's text to something like 'bugs for dummies' for a professional etymologist. The 'lowest common denominator' source for calculus would be Khan Academy videos or literally 'calculus for dummies'.

>>9163015
Yeah. Just pirate it and see it yourself.

>>9161392
underage pls go

>>9163173
Tao is a brilliant guy, but his books are lacking. I'm convinced that any who thinks his books are great simply has not read any other analysis text.

HAHAHAHA ALLENS MISCONDUCT WILL LOSE THEM THE GAME LMAOOOO

>>9163309
What other introductory analysis books would you recommend?

>>9163362
Rudin. ucla switched back to this from Tao's for honors analysis. It's the standard for a reason imo. There are easier intros such as Abbott's understanding analysis (I've not read it).

>>9163526
What level of knowledge does it assume? I'm basically starting from scratch as far as analysis is concerned, although I'm comfortable with proofs.

>>9162463
bump

>>9163538
It is often used for undergraduate honors analysis.
All you need is some experience writing proofs such as that in a proof-based linear algebra course that a school would normally suggest/require. You should also have introductory calculus, and proof-based linear algebra will be very helpful I believe.

You should keep in mind that the book is less than 400 pages and it is typically covered throughout 3 different analysis courses.
You will spend a lot of time on some pages and a lot of time if you're planning on working through all the exercises.
There are also complete lectures online that are based around this text (and some good ones at that).
Again, you will probably spend a lot of time figuring out some of the theorems, but it is very rewarding in my experience.

>>9163549
Like basic algebra? Or upper-div algebra?
If basic, then just use khan academy and get a workbook with a ton of practice problems.
Analytic geometry is often taught alongside calculus I. And don't skimp on trig. Calc 1 doesn't have any great textbooks I can think of. The typical answer would be to say Apostol, but you could also do MIT OCW.

>>9163553
Best for high school level algebra. I can't use Khan academy. I need a book.

>>9163559
Get a cheap one. I can't imagine them being that much different. Check what is at your local bookstore.

>>9162568
high school

>>9162463
basic mathematics - lang

I'm currently learning from a general algebra book (Aluffi, Algebra chaper 0), which deals with groups, rings and modules with a categorical view all the way to homological algebra.

What's the next step?

File: IMG_8268.jpg (172KB, 1226x1859px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1226x1859px

I'm still an undergrad so don't have an idea about analysis or advanced math, but this is a good one

>>9163581
Can you recommend a classic for both?

>>9163269
Yes, i was using hyperbole to express my point. Stewart isnt calculjs for dummies, but hes certainly no spivak or apostol.

File: dur!.png (458KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 600x600px

How advanced are you guys that you can just pick up one of these and start reading? Graduate students? Postgraduates? Doctors?

>>9163932
high school graduate you dumb burger

>>9163932
I recently got my PhD.

>>9163932
Much of /sci/ actually haven't read the meme books. Don't believe /sci/ on the meme books.

>>9164149
>much
*most

>>9164097
Classic! Cheers, anon.

File: 41aMJch2MwL._SX314_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (31KB, 316x499px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 316x499px

>>9161392

File: 1489818650900.jpg (955KB, 1732x3460px) Image search: [Google]

955KB, 1732x3460px

anything from this pic

File: Thinking, Fast and Slow.jpg (55KB, 668x1000px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 668x1000px

Not a Maths book at all, but I highly recommend everyone reads this book. It's fucking amazingly deep.